Cooper

The suit was brought on the promissory note of the three defendants, set out in the complaint, pur porting to have been executed by defendant Patton, by Boal, his attorney. Judgment was entered against the defendants Burch and Boal, on default, and against the defendant, Patton; on his subsequent appearance and answer. A new trial was granted, and was affirmed by the supreme court on appeal (Cooper v. Burch, 140 Cal. 548 , [ 74 Pac. 37 ]), and on another trial the plaintiffs were nonsuited. Under the decision of the former appeal, thé only questions now before us relate to the defendant Patton’s “liability on the obligation upon which the judgment was recovered.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 992.) This liability is denied by him on the ground, among others, that the power of attorney under which Boal acted did not authorize him to execute the note; and this, we think, was the case. But it is claimed by the appellants that Patton was notified of the making of the note a few days after its date; and that having failed to repudiate the same, or to make any objections thereto, the action of his agent is to be regarded as having been ratified by him, or at least, that ha. k estopped to deny…